Even John McCain will have to consider such newthink if he wants to prevent a U.S. military meltdown.

You suggesting the possibility of a military meltdown is INSULTING to our men and women in uniform and I feel you owe them an apology for not supporting their mission because when I talk to them they tell me blah blah blah blah

Possibility of a Military meltdown?

Meltdown Accomplished!

It's as if our foreign policy is being run by people whose childhood experience of disagreement and conflict always ended with, "Go to your room and think about it!" So all they can think of doing with Iran is sending them into some imaginary 'room' in which they will eventually penitent. As if they think, "Our disfavor should be enough of an incentive to change!"

One would think that after 7 years of Bush glitz is the last thing you would want. "Safely sensible" is such a novelty under Bush that we should all be drawn to it.

The next White House occupant, unburdened by the rhetoric of "axis of evil," can explore whether broad talks without preconditions might enable Washington and Tehran to cooperate on Iraq. That, in turn, would facilitate a U.S. drawdown. Even John McCain will have to consider such newthink if he wants to prevent a U.S. military meltdown.

So how does this work -- if you're going to be a shrewd reporter on what's happening in Iraq, you simply don't have time to follow the voting record, positions, & statements of the Republican nominee? Somebody, please, explain what it is about McCain that leads a person to believe that he'll do anything differently from Bush when it comes to this war, or, particularly, in dealing with Iran.

... I end up reading a couple of them and then wandering off to the glitzier quarters of the blogosphere to look for more stimulation.

Do these quarters have dress codes? Cuz I really don't feel like getting gussied up.

For all his schemes, lies and scams Chalibi does deserve a nod for voices the common sense observation that the US problems in Iraq are caused by the fact that our “…allies in Iraq are friends with our enemies in the region and our allies in the region are aligned with our enemies in Iraq.�

There is no group that we have a natural bond with, and no group that we really understand in a sophisticated way.

BTW: When our leaders say that their goal is to help Iraq develop into a multi ethnic democracy committed to the rule of law, do we know (even roughly) how many Iraqi citizens feel the same way? Further, how many are willing to struggle mightily and sacrifice greatly during a long term struggle to make that happen?

Sure Iraqis all want better days, but what is the level of agreement about what actually constitutes “better day� and what (in the light of differences) is the critical mass needed to allow for a chance of accomplishment?

our men and women in uniform are saying this and it's fucking heartbreaking, because although they're good people and doing their best without whining, the subtext is "get us the fuck out of here, please!"

It's hard to keep the players straight without a scorecard. So here is mine:

All the Shiite militias in Iraq (except for Sadr's) trained in Iran. There, they were helped/armed/trained by our CIA. Badr militia (trained in Iran) is really the Iraq Army as well as the fiefdom of the ruling Iraqi political party. And it was Iran that brokered the peaceful resolution of the Maliki /Sadr battle in Basra.

When the President of Iran visited Iraq the other week it was a state visit and the man was kissed on both cheeks by al Maliki.

So...to review..CIA /Iran trains all Iraq Shiite militias except for the Sadr one. Our man in Baghdad (that would be Patreaus) says the Iranians are troublemakers and are behind Sadr, AQ and the roadside bombs.

Our other man in Baghdad (al Maliki) loves the Iranian ruling party.

So, sometimes the Iranians are our allies and sometimes they are our enemies. Confusing ? Big Question: Why did we build such a deadly house of cards in Iraq?

Possible answer:

There's no logic to what Team Bush does. As the crazy but smart like a fox Chalabi noted to author Mark Danner: "The American tragedy in Iraq is that your friends in Iraq are allied with your enemies in the region, and your enemies in Iraq are allied with your friends in the region."

Deal with Iran! But out whole sense of identity is wrapped up in our being their Great Satan, and them being terrorist axis-of-evil scum. Thats too satisfying to give up.

Team Bush's actions make no sense only if viewed through the prism of American interests. I submit that Bush is and always has been working counter to our interests but for the oil companies, defense contractors and the Saudis. For them, invading Iraq made total sense: the Saudis had all American troops removed from their soil and the threat of Saddam (who, remember, once invaded their client state Kuwait) obliterated. The price of oil is five times what it was in 2000 and defense contractors have reaped a trillion or so from the U.S. Treasury. I believe they put Bush in office with truckloads of unreported cash and they (plus other corporate interests like Big Pharma) are the only ones who have benefited from his criminal actions.

You think CheneyCo is "ignoring Iran and hoping it'll go away"? That's not quite how I would describe it.

Like all of us, McCain had to choose between one or the other. That Bush has been bad does not show that Kerry would not have been worse. And I do not see lots of troops coming home. I just see more and more tragedies happen in Iraq. And I also know how billions of dollars were wasted in Iraq that Joseph E. Stiglitz told us: http://dealstudio.com/searchdeals.php?deal_id=93000&ru=279 , and it seems that the Bush administration makes no mention of the long term costs of the injured soldiers returning from Iraq.

Britain has been trying to buy influence in Iraq on the cheap for years. That was almost supportable in 2003-2005, when we still had an advantage over the US forces in COIN experience. That advantage was lost in 2006, and we now bring nothing to the party in Iraq, either in physical or conceptual capability. Several of our senior officers in Baghdad have been given token jobs in reconstruction, and are listened to politely by both the Iraqis and the US, but ultimately ignored. It's no surprise: you buy influence in blood and treasure, and our politician are prepared to pay neither.

I'm still convinced we need to fight and win in Iraq, in Basra as much as Baghdad. But that means our leaders must be prepared to support the full range of options, and they simply do not have the courage to do so. For example, we're supposed to be in 'overwatch' in Basra: but that presupposes that we would take action if we detected a deterioration. Can you honestly imagine Brown presiding over the return of British battle-groups to the streets of Basra for sustained operations? The fact is that we now have neither the manpower nor the political guts to surge: 'overwatch' is a meaningless, feel-good term to mask our impotence and loss of credibility.

Sadly, we should cover our losses and leave. At least then the US can start re-deploying forces that will not simply hunker down on an airbase, venturing out only to run ranges for the Iraqi Security Forces or to protect our own supply lines. As it is, we're basically a net detractor to the Coalition's campaign, dependent upon US resources for basic life support.

This situation is shameful, and is another example of the deliberate emasculation of Britain's institutions. Brown is slowly creating an armed forces without the capability to conduct serious operations on any scale in the future, and whose political leadership lacks the intent to either address this or oppose it. The Treasury is systematically starving the armed forces of support, and our operational leaders are forced to pare capability until there is no alternative but to recommend withdrawal. We are becoming, under Brown and our out-manoeuvred senior officers, a shadow of an army, hollowed-out and demoralised. Even worse, we are becoming a typical fair-weather ally, like the rest of our NATO 'partners'.